Four Elements of Definition of

Communication Competence
07 June 2010 at 08:03 Leave a comment

Four Elements of Definition of Communication Competence by Canale and Swain:

1 – Grammatical Competence: words and rules
Knowing how to use the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of a language. Linguistic competence asks: What words
do I use? How do I put them into phrases and sentences?)
2 – Sociolinguistic Competence: appropriateness
Knowing how to use and respond to language appropriately, given the setting, the topic, and the relationships among
the people communicating. Sociolinguistic competence asks: Which words and phrases fit this setting and this topic?
How can I express a specific attitude (courtesy, authority, friendliness, respect) when I need to? How do I know what
attitude another person is expressing?
3 – Discourse Competence: cohesion and coherence
Knowing how to interpret the larger context and how to construct longer stretches of language so that the parts make
up a coherent whole. Discourse competence asks: How are words, phrases and sentences put together to create
conversations, speeches, email messages, newspaper articles?
4 – Strategic Competence: appropriate use of communicative strategies
Knowing how to recognize and repair communication breakdowns, how to work around gaps in one’s knowledge of
the language, and how to learn more about the language and in the context. Strategic competence asks: How do I
know when I’ve misunderstood or when someone has misunderstood me? What do I say then? How can I express
my ideas if I don’t know the name of something or the right verb form to use

If a language learner is asked what they think the goal of a language course is,
they would probably answer that it is to teach the grammar and vocabulary of
that language. However, if they are asked what their goal is as language learners,
they would most probably answer that it is to be able to communicate in that
language.

I am not saying that in actuality the goal of a language course is to teach solely
grammar and vocabulary — well, at least it shouldn’t be just that anymore. (I’ve
been in a course with such an outdated approach, and the results were, of course,
poor). Fortunately, the focus of second language teaching has moved from purely
teaching grammar and vocabulary, to providing the skills for effective
communication. In linguistics terminology, a language course should not only have
“linguistic competence” as its goal, but “communicative competence” in general.

But what do these terms mean? Communicative competence is a term coined by

Dell Hymes in 1966 in reaction to Noam Chomsky’s (1965) notion of “linguistic
competence”. Communicative competence is the intuitive functional knowledge
and control of the principles of language usage. As Hymes observes:

“…a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences not only as grammatical, but also as appropriate.
He or she acquires competence as to when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with
whom, when, where, in what manner. In short, a child becomes able to accomplish a repertoire of
speech acts, to take part in speech events, and to evaluate their accomplishment by others.”
(Hymes 1972, 277)

In other words, a language user needs to use the language not only correctly
(based on linguistic competence), but also appropriately (based on communicative
competence). Of course, this approach does not diminish the importance of
learning the grammatical rules of a language. In fact, it is one of the four
components of communicative competence: linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse,
and strategic competence.

1. Linguistic competence is the knowledge of the language code, i.e. its

grammar and vocabulary, and also of the conventions of its written
representation (script and orthography). The grammar component includes
the knowledge of the sounds and their pronunciation (i.e. phonetics), the
rules that govern sound interactions and patterns (i.e. phonology), the
formation of words by means of e.g. inflection and derivation (i.e.
morphology), the rules that govern the combination of words and phrases
to structure sentences (i.e. syntax), and the way that meaning is conveyed
through language (i.e. semantics).

2. Sociolinguistic competence is the knowledge of sociocultural rules of use,

i.e. knowing how to use and respond to language appropriately. The
 appropriateness depends on the setting of the communication, the topic,
and the relationships among the people communicating. Moreover, being
appropriate depends on knowing what the taboos of the other culture are,
what politeness indices are used in each case, what the politically correct
term would be for something, how a specific attitude (authority,
friendliness, courtesy, irony etc.) is expressed etc.

3. Discourse competence is the knowledge of how to produce and

comprehend oral or written texts in the modes of speaking/writing and
listening/reading respectively. It’s knowing how to combine language
structures into a cohesive and coherent oral or written text of different
types. Thus, discourse competence deals with organising words, phrases
and sentences in order to create conversations, speeches, poetry, email
messages, newspaper articles etc.

4. Strategic competence is the ability to recognise and repair communication

breakdowns before, during, or after they occur. For instance, the speaker
may not know a certain word, thus will plan to either paraphrase, or ask
what that word is in the target language. During the conversation,
background noise or other factors may hinder communication; thus the
speaker must know how to keep the communication channel open. If the
communication was unsuccessful due to external factors (such as
interruptions), or due to the message being misunderstood, the speaker
must know how to restore communication. These strategies may be
requests for repetition, clarification, slower speech, or the usage of
gestures, taking turns in conversation etc.

These four components of communicative competence should be respected in

teaching a foreign language —and they usually are by modern teaching methods
employed in second language teaching. Usually most of the above are best
learned if the language learner immerses into the culture of a country that speaks
the target language. Wouldn’t it be great if the language teaching methodologies
helped language learners reach communicative competence to a great degree
even if the learner has never immersed into the target culture?

References:
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Hymes, Dell H. (1966). "Two types of linguistic relativity". In Bright,
W. Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 114–158.

Hymes, Dell H. (1972). "On communicative competence". In Pride, J.B.; Holmes,

J. Sociolinguistics: selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. 269–293.

0 comments